I'm charged that Adam is in Boston for the One State conference, but wanted to throw him a fastball while he's there. I was reading this last night on the couch: the latest New Voices, which contains a fine interview (by Josh Nathan-Kazis) of Dov Khenin, a member of Knesset in Israel from the Hadash Party, an Israeli Palestinian party. A Jew who ran for mayor of Tel Aviv recently, Khenin supports two states. His objection to the one-state solution has a class component:
NV: What is Hadash’s position with regard to an endgame for the conflict?
DK: Hadash was the movement to coin the slogan “Israel and Palestine: Two States for the Two Peoples.” This is our slogan and this is something we believe in. The creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel is the only feasible way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the very same time, we believe that both states, Israel and Palestine, should be democratic ones. In Israel the Arabic minority should have full equality, and if there is a Jewish minority within the Palestinian state it should also have its equal status.
NV: Some on the left argue for a single bi-national state. Why doesn’t Hadash support such a proposal?
DK: People speaking about one bi-national state are only proving that they are totally separated from reality. Uniting within a single state a very modern society from the first world and a very poor society living in conditions of the third world is a sure recipe for an explosion of the situation in this country. At the very same time abandoning the idea of a Palestinian state is surrendering to Israel’s extremist right wing who all the time try to establish the idea of Eretz Yisrael Shlema [Greater Israel]. You can see that the extreme Arab nationalistic idea is also at the very same idea an extreme Jewish nationalistic idea. This is proof why this idea is not something more than a very imaginary illusion.
NV: Do you consider yourself a Zionist?
DK: No.
DK: Hadash was the movement to coin the slogan “Israel and Palestine: Two States for the Two Peoples.” This is our slogan and this is something we believe in. The creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel is the only feasible way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the very same time, we believe that both states, Israel and Palestine, should be democratic ones. In Israel the Arabic minority should have full equality, and if there is a Jewish minority within the Palestinian state it should also have its equal status.
NV: Some on the left argue for a single bi-national state. Why doesn’t Hadash support such a proposal?
DK: People speaking about one bi-national state are only proving that they are totally separated from reality. Uniting within a single state a very modern society from the first world and a very poor society living in conditions of the third world is a sure recipe for an explosion of the situation in this country. At the very same time abandoning the idea of a Palestinian state is surrendering to Israel’s extremist right wing who all the time try to establish the idea of Eretz Yisrael Shlema [Greater Israel]. You can see that the extreme Arab nationalistic idea is also at the very same idea an extreme Jewish nationalistic idea. This is proof why this idea is not something more than a very imaginary illusion.
NV: Do you consider yourself a Zionist?
DK: No.
So, let's see, no "separate but equal" water fountains? No single state solution. Otherwise some schools might be better, more fully funded, than others? The USA is still working on that scenario…
Two states. No single path to walk down to get a drink of water (no diverging at the end, merging on return). But don't the settlements make any Pal state a rump state? And one that, if Israel has its way, won't ever be fully sovereign? Hasn't that been the sticking point all along?
The UN and its predecessor authorized the Mandate, then Partition. Until Truman beat the USSR
to the punch and unilaterally recognized Israel, American UN diplomats (and the US State Dept) were in the UN consensus that the whole area would be a divided UN super-jurisdiction, complete with a multi-national police force to protect the jews from the arabs and visa-versa.
Its not Jews in Palestine that make it a prospective rump state. Its that the settlements are a state effort, structuring incremental state annexation.
It could be parsed to construct a Jewish minority within sovereign Palestine, if Palestine can accept them.
That would occur only if they formed their goal in positive terms, what they want, rather than what they oppose.
Hadash has never claimed to be anti-zionist. If it had, it would have been barred from running candidates for the Knesset.
The one-state/two-state, red-state/blue-state conundrum could probably be resolved quite rapidly if the parties adopted the "One person cuts the cake, the other person chooses the slice" rule.
I think both parties might prefer the one-state solution under those terms as they would essentially be 'getting more' by giving up 'some'.
"One person cuts the cake, the other person chooses the slice"
Great idea.
Amazing comment Richard, really amazing:
Its not Jews in Palestine that make it a prospective rump state. Its that the settlements are a state effort, structuring incremental state annexation.
It could be parsed to construct a Jewish minority within sovereign Palestine, if Palestine can accept them.
That would occur only if they formed their goal in positive terms, what they want, rather than what they oppose.
Posted by: Richard Witty | March 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Can you please tell me what exactly you disagree with in the Hadash position. It feels, it is close to yours stated here. What exactly is the difference you react to? Why does this feel like bias to me?
I want to understand.
So who first chooses any slice?
Who chooses the person who cuts the cake?
Also, @ Witty
"Its not Jews in Palestine that make it a prospective rump state. Its that the settlements are a state effort, structuring incremental state annexation."
What are you saying, that Jews rule (sitting atop Uncle Sam) ? If not, what?
"It could be parsed to construct a Jewish minority within sovereign Palestine, if Palestine can accept them."
Yes?
"That would occur only if they formed their goal in positive terms, what they want, rather than what they oppose."
And in the Israel state? Identical goals, each their own?
The "one-state" state would simply ratify the "historic (biblical) state of Israel). The "two-states living side by side in peace" can only work if the occupation and the settlements are withdrawn. But the occupation and the settlements can only exist by virtue of the billions of subsidies furnished by the U.S. "taxpayers." The US can enforce withdrawal of the occupation and dismantling of the settlements by the simple (!?) expedient of stopping the subsidy. Once the IDF is withdrawn and the financial subsidies stopped the settlers would have to choose–go back where they came from or accept Palestinian citizenship (wink, wink).
If the Obama administration is serious about the now reiterated endorsement at the highest level of the two-state plan, there are two steps necessary and almost sufficient: 1) Recognize the state of Palestine now, without preconditions; 2) Stop the subsidies until the withdrawal not only begins but becomes irreversible.
The interesting question in my view is "was the two-state solution ever alive?" (excluding UN resolution 181, and even with that I'm being gracious).
For my latest critique of it, I went back and read the Geneva accords. Over five years ago, and still the Israeli left had nothing to offer to the Palestinian people except further domination:
http://mostlyonisrael.blogspot.com/2009/03/two-state-myth.html
Thanks, as always,
Aryeh.
Thanks, Aryeh Amihay, I support your link: The Two State Myth
Maybe that's the two state solution, our dear Richard Witty has in mind, but never says clearly. And he knows that it's not quite the same that Hadash demands.
Haven't I been clear at what two-state solution I'm advocating for?
The green line, with the exception of the Jewish portions of the old city of Jerusalem as part of West Jerusalem.
Title reviewed on all land, with remedy in most cases accomplished by compensation to perfect title. Forced removal only in very rare cases, where the individuals residing were the ones that executed theft. Those that were the beneficiaries of ambiguity of title, should compensate.
Insistence that both states adopt color-blind rule of law for all as far as all administrative, electoral, property rights, government benefits, etc.
The only goal of these that I observe ANY difference with the rancorous "dissenters" is on the status of the individual settlers, that they be allowed to live in sovereign Palestine if they choose, and have the legal rights as a minority.
Maybe some think that Israel should give the entire old city to Palestine, which frankly will never happen. It is a worthless fantasy to even include it in any discussion.
Jordan took it by force from the 1948 UN ratified borders (as an international city), so to call it in the Palestine mandated area is a bit of an exageration.
you forgot. the Khartoum Arab conference after june 1967. The three
"no's"
1. No recognition
2. No negotiation
3. No peace.
Israel had offered to return all of the DISPUTED territories.